Biden: Life Begins At Conception

[AUDub 11,147]

I heard an interesting take on this subject a few weeks ago, can't remember where, but the gentleman ask why is it if NASA found a living cell on a distant planet we would rejoice that life was found, but in a womb we do not?

That is an exercise in false equivalence.

I disagree.

Of course you do. You're also wrong.

[DKW 86 7,419]

I find it interesting how people compartmentalize their moral standards depending on the situation. For example, you rarely see the same sort of moral outrage when we deploy our military even though we know that innocent people - including actual babies and children - will die. There's always extenuating circumstances or intentions that are used as an excuse to make that acceptable.

My opinion regarding abortion is that it is the pregnant woman's decision, period. It is not for anyone else - particularly the government - to force her to have a child. That's it. I don't advocate terminating a pregnancy any more than I advocate killing innocents in war, but it's not my decision to make. It's the woman. It's her body not mine - or the fetus's for that matter.

Look at it as a principled position similar to the principled position that justifies killing innocents for the sake of self defense.

homie, you win the all time cop out award. I dont think men should molest little girls, but it's not my decision...

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

I heard an interesting take on this subject a few weeks ago, can't remember where, but the gentleman ask why is it if NASA found a living cell on a distant planet we would rejoice that life was found, but in a womb we do not?

That is an exercise in false equivalence.

I disagree.

Of course you do. You're also wrong.

Prove it.

[AUDub 11,147]

I heard an interesting take on this subject a few weeks ago, can't remember where, but the gentleman ask why is it if NASA found a living cell on a distant planet we would rejoice that life was found, but in a womb we do not?

That is an exercise in false equivalence.

I disagree.

Of course you do. You're also wrong.

Prove it.

You really don't see the distinction between the discovery of extraterrestrial life and one more human among the roughly 7 billion currently occupying this planet? It's a senseless comparison.

[AU-HANDLEY-TIGER 205]

I thought the discussion was when life starts? Not if there are too many of us on this planet, because that is another problem entirely.

[DKW 86 7,419]

I heard an interesting take on this subject a few weeks ago, can't remember where, but the gentleman ask why is it if NASA found a living cell on a distant planet we would rejoice that life was found, but in a womb we do not?

That is an exercise in false equivalence.

I disagree.

Of course you do. You're also wrong.

Prove it.

You really don't see the distinction between the discovery of extraterrestrial life and one more human among the roughly 7 billion currently occupying this planet? It's a senseless comparison.

Actually Ben, PT is correct. It is not false equivalence. It is a pointed statement meant to show how the crazies think. We spend $BNs to find a cell or a fragment of a cell in outer space and let the children in the world starve. Some of us are willing to allow the slaughter of babies by a totally uncaring part of our population that equates convenience of birth control too the penultimate statement on the development of mankind. We slaughter 1.3M babies a year on the altar of convenience. But hey, it generates money for the right pols in DC and some of us get to dehumanize babies as nothing but a "fetus," a clump of cells.

[AURaptor 1,122]

I'm confused.... because some child is hungry or even starving to death, we can't search for life, intelligent or otherwise, in the universe ?

[AUDub 11,147]

I thought the discussion was when life starts? Not if there are too many of us on this planet, because that is another problem entirely.

Well, that's not what I'm suggesting.

Your friend's comparison is logically bunk. Every birth is a miracle, sure, but it's a miracle that has occurred over 100,000,000,000 times. There's nothing particularly unique about how you and I came to be.

Finding extraterrestrial life will answer on the the greatest mysteries of our existence. Are we alone?

[AURaptor 1,122]

There are more stars in the known galaxy than there are grains of sand on all the world's beaches.

To date, we know of life existing around just ONE of those stars.

100,000,000,000 may seem like a large number. But at the low end, there are 10 sextillion ( billion billion ) stars in our universe.

There could even be as much as 100 , 200 or more sextillion stars. Many of those having one or multiple planets around them.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

I heard an interesting take on this subject a few weeks ago, can't remember where, but the gentleman ask why is it if NASA found a living cell on a distant planet we would rejoice that life was found, but in a womb we do not?

That is an exercise in false equivalence.

I disagree.

Of course you do. You're also wrong.

Prove it.

You really don't see the distinction between the discovery of extraterrestrial life and one more human among the roughly 7 billion currently occupying this planet? It's a senseless comparison.

I just said I disagree. But you said I'm wrong. Why not just say we disagree rather than saying I'm wrong on something that IS a matter of opinion.

[DKW 86 7,419]

I'm confused.... because some child is hungry or even starving to death, we can't search for life, intelligent or otherwise, in the universe ?

Should we is the question?

[icanthearyou 4,462]

I'm confused.... because some child is hungry or even starving to death, we can't search for life, intelligent or otherwise, in the universe ?

Should we is the question?

I think this is a very valid question. Even if, you only consider hungry children in this country. Given what we collectively produce, given what we collectively waste, why should there be any hungry children in the United States?

[cooltigger21 0]

I'm confused.... because some child is hungry or even starving to death, we can't search for life, intelligent or otherwise, in the universe ?

Should we is the question?

The same question could be asked of just about anything. It's not like we ere diverting resources from preventing child hunger to do these other things. We've got programs stacked on top of each other that is supposed to take care of that. People are being starved by tyranny rather thsn lack of resources.

[AU-HANDLEY-TIGER 205]

No i think the point is if you consider a single cell life elsewhere you must consider it life in the womb as well, or you are contradicting yourself.

[cooltigger21 0]

If you believe that you can't place any restrictions on a woman during any stage of pregnancy, then you can't have any belief that is a living human until it is born.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

No i think the point is if you consider a single cell life elsewhere you must consider it life in the womb as well, or you are contradicting yourself.

I do not believe that was ever the real question. Life is life. I think the debate is whether or not, you can make a distinction about what constitutes a "human being". Is it primarily biological or, is there level of consciousness that must also be considered.

[AUDub 11,147]

No i think the point is if you consider a single cell life elsewhere you must consider it life in the womb as well, or you are contradicting yourself.

No one really disputes the notion that the embryo is alive. Those that do are stupid.

[AUDub 11,147]

I heard an interesting take on this subject a few weeks ago, can't remember where, but the gentleman ask why is it if NASA found a living cell on a distant planet we would rejoice that life was found, but in a womb we do not?

That is an exercise in false equivalence.

I disagree.

Of course you do. You're also wrong.

Prove it.

You really don't see the distinction between the discovery of extraterrestrial life and one more human among the roughly 7 billion currently occupying this planet? It's a senseless comparison.

Actually Ben, PT is correct. It is not false equivalence. It is a pointed statement meant to show how the crazies think. We spend $BNs to find a cell or a fragment of a cell in outer space and let the children in the world starve. Some of us are willing to allow the slaughter of babies by a totally uncaring part of our population that equates convenience of birth control too the penultimate statement on the development of mankind. We slaughter 1.3M babies a year on the altar of convenience. But hey, it generates money for the right pols in DC and some of us get to dehumanize babies as nothing but a "fetus," a clump of cells.

No idea what you're rambling on about, bunny with a pancake on its head yada yada yada

[homersapien 11,366]

I find it interesting how people compartmentalize their moral standards depending on the situation. For example, you rarely see the same sort of moral outrage when we deploy our military even though we know that innocent people - including actual babies and children - will die. There's always extenuating circumstances or intentions that are used as an excuse to make that acceptable.

My opinion regarding abortion is that it is the pregnant woman's decision, period. It is not for anyone else - particularly the government - to force her to have a child. That's it. I don't advocate terminating a pregnancy any more than I advocate killing innocents in war, but it's not my decision to make. It's the woman. It's her body not mine - or the fetus's for that matter.

Look at it as a principled position similar to the principled position that justifies killing innocents for the sake of self defense.

homie, you win the all time cop out award. I dont think men should molest little girls, but it's not my decision...

Little girls have rights that a fetus does not. But you are right, it's not your decision to commit the act, it's the pedofile's.

[homersapien 11,366]

I thought the discussion was when life starts? Not if there are too many of us on this planet, because that is another problem entirely.

More like when individual rights start.

But if you rather make it "life", then there are plenty of cases in which we as a society rationalize the taking of life.

[homersapien 11,366]

I heard an interesting take on this subject a few weeks ago, can't remember where, but the gentleman ask why is it if NASA found a living cell on a distant planet we would rejoice that life was found, but in a womb we do not?

That is an exercise in false equivalence.

I disagree.

Of course you do. You're also wrong.

Prove it.

You really don't see the distinction between the discovery of extraterrestrial life and one more human among the roughly 7 billion currently occupying this planet? It's a senseless comparison.

Actually Ben, PT is correct. It is not false equivalence. It is a pointed statement meant to show how the crazies think. We spend $BNs to find a cell or a fragment of a cell in outer space and let the children in the world starve. Some of us are willing to allow the slaughter of babies by a totally uncaring part of our population that equates convenience of birth control too the penultimate statement on the development of mankind. We slaughter 1.3M babies a year on the altar of convenience. But hey, it generates money for the right pols in DC and some of us get to dehumanize babies as nothing but a "fetus," a clump of cells.

Well, I think you could use a better example than the amount of money we use in such research (which doesn't amount to "billions" at any rate). I would have used something more trivial, such as the amount of money we spend on cell phones.

Nevertheless it's an excellent example of how we are willing to rationalize the loss of life in one instance, but hold it sacred in another, purely because of the emotional buttons it pushes.

[homersapien 11,366]

I'm confused.... because some child is hungry or even starving to death, we can't search for life, intelligent or otherwise, in the universe ?

Should we is the question?

The same question could be asked of just about anything. It's not like we ere diverting resources from preventing child hunger to do these other things. We've got programs stacked on top of each other that is supposed to take care of that. People are being starved by tyranny rather thsn lack of resources.

Of course we are.

[homersapien 11,366]

I thought the discussion was when life starts? Not if there are too many of us on this planet, because that is another problem entirely.

Well the discussion I am trying to have is that life is full of contradictions and when necessary, we (all of us) rationalize excuses for those contradictions.

[AUDub 11,147]

I'm confused.... because some child is hungry or even starving to death, we can't search for life, intelligent or otherwise, in the universe ?

The world is like a ride in an amusement park, and when you choose to go on it you think it's real because that's how powerful our minds are. The ride goes up and down, around and around, it has thrills and chills, and it's very brightly colored, and it's very loud, and it's fun for a while. Many people have been on the ride a long time, and they begin to wonder, "Hey, is this real, or is this just a ride?" And other people have remembered, and they come back to us and say, "Hey, don't worry; don't be afraid, ever, because this is just a ride." And we … kill those people. "Shut him up! I've got a lot invested in this ride, shut him up! Look at my furrows of worry, look at my big bank account, and my family. This has to be real." It's just a ride. But we always kill the good guys who try and tell us that, you ever notice that? And let the demons run amok … But it doesn't matter, because it's just a ride. And we can change it any time we want. It's only a choice. No effort, no work, no job, no savings of money. Just a simple choice, right now, between fear and love. The eyes of fear want you to put bigger locks on your doors, buy guns, close yourself off. The eyes of love instead see all of us as one. Here's what we can do to change the world, right now, to a better ride. Take all that money we spend on weapons and defenses each year and instead spend it feeding and clothing and educating the poor of the world, which it would pay for many times over, not one human being excluded, and we could explore space, together, both inner and outer, forever, in peace.'

[homersapien 11,366]

No i think the point is if you consider a single cell life elsewhere you must consider it life in the womb as well, or you are contradicting yourself.

That's a non-sequitur. First, no one disputes that a simple zygote is not life. More importantly, we casually and deliberately terminate single cell - and multi-cell organisms - as a matter of routine.